"I am Delhi Delhi-based advocate specializing in tax litigation and advisory, especially to corporates. I represent taxpayers at all tax tribunals and High Courts. we also undertake advisory in Mergers and Acquisitions matters. My contact details are vgrmc2018@gmail.com. 9811728992."
ITAT held that agricultural land within the prescribed municipal distance is a capital asset and restricted the on-money addition to the amount supported by evidence.
The Bombay High Court held that only the royalty retained after an APA adjustment is taxable, applying the doctrine of real income. It also ruled that the Indian subsidiary did not constitute a Permanent Establishment under the India-US DTAA.
The ITAT Delhi held that the assessee could not claim deduction under Section 54 for the first time before the Tribunal when it had neither been claimed in the return nor during assessment proceedings. The Tribunal also upheld the remand of the Section 50C issue to the Assessing Officer.
The Supreme Court held that online gaming, fantasy sports, and similar activities involving monetary stakes on uncertain outcomes fall within betting and gambling for GST purposes. It upheld the GST framework and taxation of actionable claims arising from such transactions.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the Transfer Pricing Officer cannot determine the arm’s length price of intra-group services at Nil merely based on assumptions regarding benefit or commercial necessity.
ITAT Chennai held that there is no provision under the Income-tax Act allowing substitution of the actual cost of land with its fair market value while computing deduction under Section 80-IB(10). The Tribunal directed that deduction be computed based on profits disclosed in the books, as the land cost had already been accounted for.
The Delhi ITAT deleted addition made under Section 68 on alleged bogus purchases linked to accommodation entry providers. The Tribunal held that purchases and corresponding sales were already recorded in the books, leaving no basis for separate addition under Section 68.
ITAT Hyderabad held that CPC cannot make adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) without issuing prior intimation to the assessee as mandated by law. The Tribunal quashed the tax adjustment denying concessional tax benefits because the mandatory opportunity of response was not provided.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income under Section 251 on matters not considered by the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.
The Chennai ITAT held that transfer pricing benchmarking cannot ignore extraordinary business circumstances arising from the shutdown of a major customer. The Tribunal upheld deletion of TP adjustment after accepting that sale of goods to the AE was a distress sale triggered by Nokia India’s closure.
